Content uploaded by Bracha Kramarski
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Bracha Kramarski on Apr 07, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Investigating Preservice Teachers’ Professional Growth in Self-Regulated
Learning Environments
Bracha Kramarski and Tova Michalsky
Bar-Ilan University
Educational reforms have suggested that the ability to self-regulate learning is essential for teachers’
professional growth during their entire career as well as for their ability to promote these processes
among students. This study observed teachers’ professional growth along 3 dimensions: self-regulated
learning (SRL) in pedagogical context, pedagogical knowledge, and perceptions of teaching and learning.
The authors examined 194 preservice teachers’ professional growth in 4 learning environments:
e-learning (EL) and face-to-face (F2F) learning, either supported by SRL (EL ⫹ SRL; F2F ⫹ SRL) or
unsupported by SRL (EL; F2F). SRL support was based on the IMPROVE metacognitive self-
questioning method (B. Kramarski & Z. R. Mevarech, 2003). Mixed quantitative and qualitative analyses
showed that preservice teachers in both supported SRL conditions outperformed their unsupported peers
on all professional growth measures. Moreover, EL ⫹ SRL teachers exhibited the highest SRL ability
(cognition, metacognition, motivation), pedagogical knowledge (designing a learning unit), and student-
centered learning perceptions (self-construction of knowledge).
Keywords: preservice teachers, self-regulated learning, pedagogical knowledge, perceptions of teaching
and learning, professional growth
Current reforms in the educational system have raised new goals
for teacher training concerning the professional growth of preservice
teachers (National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Educa-
tion, 2002). In essence, these goals maintain that teacher training
should not be limited to transmitting subject-matter knowledge
and pedagogical knowledge using predefined, fixed methods,
but rather should find ways to construct knowledge through
self-regulated learning (SRL), applying higher order thinking
skills.
Learners are self-regulated to the degree that they are metacog-
nitively, motivationally, and behaviorally active participants in
their own learning process (e.g., Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman,
1990, 2000). Unfortunately, research has demonstrated that a sig-
nificant minority of learners across a wide range of ages are not
optimally self-regulated (e.g., Azevedo & Cromley, 2004; Kramar-
ski, 2008). They lack the knowledge and skills they need to
effectively manage their learning. It has been suggested that al-
though SRL is not spontaneously acquired, it may be shaped and
developed through participation in environments that provide
learners with opportunities to be in control of their own learning
(e.g., Zimmerman, 1990, 2000).
Therefore, educators and researchers believe that teachers’ ability
to cultivate learners who are self-regulated during learning is tied to
teachers’ own self-regulation. If teachers are incapable of self-
regulating their own learning, it will be difficult for them to develop
these capabilities among their students (Crebert, Bates, Bell, Patrick,
& Cragnolini, 2004; Gibbs, 2003; Knight, 2002; No Child Left
Behind Act, 2001; Perry, Phillips, & Hutchinson, 2006; Randi &
Corno, 2000; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 1998; Zohar, 2004). In line
with this claim, research should direct attention to questions concern-
ing (a) the learning conditions that will effectively create high-SRL
environments for teachers’ professional growth and (b) how teachers
acquire expertise in such environments. Such questions have received
little attention in the literature.
Research results have shown the effectiveness of teaching ap-
proaches and learning environments that integrate subject-matter
knowledge and SRL skills (Butler & Cartier, 2004; Perry et al.,
2006; Schraw, Crippen, & Hartley, 2006). Consequently, programs
to enhance preservice teachers’ professional growth should pro-
mote the SRL skills acquired in the pedagogical context. Such
programs should afford opportunities for developing practices
associated with supporting SRL, as well as developing knowledge
and skills that will enhance teachers’ self-regulation in their own
learning and in their teaching (Perry et al., 2006; Randi, 2004;
Randi & Corno, 2000).
However, studies have indicated that preservice teachers come
to any training program with prior experience, knowledge, and
perceptions about teaching and learning. These prior perceptions
often serve as a lens through which the preservice teachers view
the new pedagogical knowledge being taught and the new pro-
cesses of teaching and learning they encounter. Therefore, it is
essential that teacher educators take these prior perceptions into
account (Calderhead, 1996; Pajares, 1992).
Following this suggestion, our study addressed two research
questions: (a) How can preservice teachers’ professional growth be
promoted, and (b) what is the effect of SRL support in different
learning environments on such growth? In our study, we observed
teachers’ professional growth along three dimensions: SRL,
pedagogical knowledge, and perceptions of teaching and learning.
Bracha Kramarski and Tova Michalsky, School of Education, Bar-Ilan
University, Ramat-Gan, Israel.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Bracha
Kramarski, School of Education, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, 52900
Israel. E-mail: kramab@mail.biu.ac.il
Journal of Educational Psychology © 2009 American Psychological Association
2009, Vol. 101, No. 1, 161–175 0022-0663/09/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0013101
161
We elaborate on each of these three dimensions of professional
growth and then present an SRL model based on the IMPROVE
method (Kramarski & Mevarech, 2003; Mevarech & Kramarski,
1997) embedded in different learning environments (e-learning
and face-to-face) for training preservice teachers.
The Three Dimensions of Professional Growth
The Self-Regulation of Learning
SRL refers to self-generated thoughts, feelings, and actions that
are planned and cyclically adapted to the attainment of personal
goals (Butler & Winne, 1995; Pintrich, 2000; Schraw et al., 2006;
Zimmerman, 1990, 2000). The process involves a combination of
four areas for regulation during learning: cognition, metacognition,
motivation, and context condition (Pintrich, 2000; Schraw et al.,
2006). Cognition refers to strategies of simple problem solving and
critical thinking. Metacognition refers to knowledge and control of
cognitive skills. Motivation refers to learners’ beliefs in their
capacity to learn, their values for the task, and their interest level.
Finally, the context refers to learners’ behaviors regarding chang-
ing tasks and learning conditions.
In terms of cognitive and metacognitive processes, self-
regulated learners are good strategy users. They plan, set goals,
select strategies, organize, self-monitor, and self-evaluate at vari-
ous points during the process of acquisition. These processes
enable them to be self-aware, knowledgeable, and decisive in their
approach to learning. In terms of motivational processes, these
learners believe in their capabilities to learn and report an intrinsic
interest in the tasks at hand. In terms of context, self-regulated
learners adapt their behaviors to the learning conditions. They
select information and seek out advice and places where they are
most likely to learn (Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman, 1990; 2000).
Pedagogical Knowledge
The second dimension of professional growth examined in the
current study is pedagogical knowledge. Discussing the profes-
sional knowledge of a teacher, Shulman and others (Darling-
Hammond, 1998; Grossman, 1995; Shulman, 1986) distinguished
between subject-matter knowledge and pedagogical knowledge,
where the pedagogical knowledge subdivided into general peda-
gogical knowledge and pedagogical-dependent subject-matter
knowledge. General pedagogical knowledge is knowledge of ped-
agogical principles, educational and psychological theories, and
methods of teaching and learning, such as active learning or
student-centered teaching strategies. The preservice teacher needs
to develop various pedagogical knowledge capabilities, like the
ability to comprehend pedagogical events via analysis of struc-
tured lesson plans, video-captured lessons, etc., or the ability to
design pedagogical events such as creating new teaching units.
Such comprehension skills are simple, requiring only that the
preservice teacher process data about existing information. How-
ever, the designing skills are more complex, higher order thinking
skills, requiring the preservice teacher to create new components
(Koetsier & Wubbels, 1995; Zohar & Schwartzer, 2005). Design-
ing skills involve planning a main theme for a lesson, defining
teaching goals, and planning a variety of teaching strategies while
using diverse didactical tools intended to adapt the content to the
learning context. Such skills demand capabilities such as regula-
tion, control, and evaluation of learning progress.
Pedagogical knowledge conducive to nurturing self-regulated
learners entails teachers’ integration of the what of the subject with
how their subject matter content is taught. As such, SRL in
teaching requires awareness concerning students’ needs and prior
knowledge as well as effective use of teaching strategies. Teachers
must be sensitive to students’ zone of proximal development,
knowing when to intervene in learning and when to allow students
to solve problems independently. Teachers who are highly effec-
tive in this regard scaffold students’ learning processes and foster
forms of meaning construction or strategic learning that students
may not reach without such expert guidance (Brown & Campione,
1994). Research has shown that teachers in high-SRL contexts
facilitate student-centered classrooms in which students are en-
couraged to formulate their own aims, to conceptualize their own
problems, to design the ways in which such problems might be
addressed, and to develop knowledge out of their own interests and
needs (Perry et al., 2006; Randi & Corno, 2000).
Teaching and Learning Perceptions
Teachers’ perceptions of teaching and learning, the third dimen-
sion of professional growth investigated in the current study, refer
to knowledge and beliefs about how to teach and how to learn
(Pajares, 1992). According to SRL theories, teachers’ perceptions
provide a framework for their judgments about enacted or pro-
posed practices, determining how teachers comprehend experi-
ences and make instructional decisions (e.g., Butler & Cartier,
2004). As such, teachers’ perceptions may have the greatest impact
on what teachers do in the classroom, the way they conceptualize
their instruction, and how they learn from experience (e.g., Brody,
1998). SRL researchers have paid relatively little attention to the
relations between teacher perceptions and instructional practice,
yet it seems imperative to examine those perceptions when study-
ing SRL environments of exemplary practice.
Many researchers have attempted to characterize teachers’ per-
ceptions (Borko & Putnam, 1996; Butler & Cartier, 2004; Kagan,
1992; VanDriel, Bulte, & Verloop, 2007; Wang, 2002). Teachers’
perceptions of teaching and learning lie on a continuum from
teacher-centered activity to student-centered activity, focusing on
the following aspects of teaching and learning (Bruner, 1996;
Butler & Winne, 1995; McKeough & Lupart, 1991; Reigeluth &
Frick, 1999). At one end of the continuum is an emphasis on direct
transmission of information from teacher to student (i.e., students
are passive in their construction of knowledge and are usually
exposed to a frontal lesson), which represents the lower stage of
teacher-centered activity. Next on the continuum is a focus on
guidance and modeling by the teacher, who serves as the agent
between the material and the student (i.e., students are exposed to
explicit elaborated information as explanations provided by the
teacher). Next, emphasis lies on empowerment and development
of the students (i.e., students are exposed to teaching strategies
adapted to differential student needs). Finally, at the other end of
the continuum is the call for construction of knowledge by the
students (i.e., students are responsible for their learning, and the
teacher usually employs active learning strategies such as cooperative
learning), which represents the highest student-centered activity
stage.
162
KRAMARSKI AND MICHALSKY
Researchers and educators who studied the role of such percep-
tions among teachers, from novices to experts, found that novice
teachers’ perceptions about teaching and learning are influenced in
large measure by their earlier experiences as students in schools
and later as student teachers (e.g., Duffy, 1997). Furthermore, most
teachers, especially novice ones, tend to perceive teaching–
learning as a teacher-centered activity rather than as a student-
centered one (e.g., Zohar, 2004). This tendency may significantly
impede the development of SRL among teachers themselves: As
researchers have proposed, teachers who do not perceive teaching
and learning to be processes in which the students themselves
structure their knowledge will find it difficult to develop these
capabilities in themselves (e.g., Butler & Cartier, 2004; Perry et
al., 2006; Randi & Corno, 2000).
Training Conditions to Facilitate Professional Growth
Which learning conditions, then, will best foster preservice
teachers’ self-regulation and pedagogical knowledge based on
student-centered activity perceptions? Leading researchers in
teacher training, such as Cochran-Smith and colleagues (Cochran-
Smith & Lytle, 1999; Little, 2002), have suggested that teachers
undergo training using active learning, in which the preservice
teachers are at the center of the process and structure the peda-
gogical knowledge themselves. This type of training holds impor-
tant implications for how preservice teachers perceive the essence
of their chosen profession, develop self-regulating capabilities, and
mold their pedagogical knowledge. Researchers (e.g., Butler &
Cartier, 2005; Pintrich, 2004; Schraw et al., 2006) have asserted
that the ability to structure knowledge substantially depends on the
learning environment and on training toward SRL. On the basis of
these suggestions, we first address two learning environments
that promote the professional growth of preservice teachers
(electronic and face-to-face) and then present a model for
training in self-regulation.
Electronic Learning
Electronic learning (e-learning) environments are an increas-
ingly common setting in postmodern educational curricula. Such
environments provide easy access to hypermedia that offers infor-
mation by a variety of hypertexts, graphics, animations, and audio
or video, which the learner navigates intuitively. Technology-
enhanced, student-centered learning environments create contexts
within which knowledge and skills are authentically anchored that
provide a range of tools and resources for navigating and manip-
ulating information (Hannafin, Hall, Land, & Hill, 1994). “[These
environments] afford opportunities to seek rather than to comply,
to experiment rather than to accept, to evaluate rather than to
accumulate, and to interpret rather than to adopt” (Hannafin &
Land, 1997, p. 175).
An e-learning environment gives learners opportunities for ac-
tive, student-centered learning in which the students themselves
decide what to learn, how to learn, whether they understand the
material, when to change plans and strategies, and when to in-
crease effort, based on their own needs and interests (Azevedo &
Cromley, 2004). Britt and Gabrys (2001) pointed out that in such
an environment, learners need to be able to regulate, control, and
evaluate their own learning progress.
Although the e-learning environment seems to inherently pro-
mote the application of self-regulating capabilities, most studies
have shown that it often leads to little study because learners do
not know how to direct themselves to effectively take advantage of
what the environment has to offer. Many researchers of e-learning
(e.g., Azevedo & Cromley, 2004; Blank, 2000; Hannum, 2001;
Kramarski & Mizrachi, 2006; Michalsky, Zion, & Mevarech,
2007) found that learners of all ages fail to apply relevant prior
knowledge in such an environment. They find it difficult to coor-
dinate the numerous representations of information, to determine
an appropriate learning continuum, to plan, to use effective strat-
egies, and to monitor their progress. These findings suggest that
e-learning environments should incorporate support for self-
regulation during learning.
Face-to-Face Learning
Research literature indicates that face-to-face, traditional class-
room learning is based mainly on teacher-centered activity. Usu-
ally, the student is not active in the learning process. The teacher
processes and organizes the learning for the student, resulting in
greater emphasis on strategies of rote learning and less on SRL
strategies. Studies have demonstrated that, similar to the e-learning
environment, it is possible to encourage student-centered activity
in a face-to-face setting (Kramarski & Mevarech, 2003; Kramarski
& Mizrachi, 2006; Zion, Michalsky, & Mevarech, 2005). Such
activity can be facilitated via the integration of study groups,
question asking, and the assignment of interactive tasks. However,
evidence has shown that active learning is insufficient to develop
students’ self-regulation capabilities in the face-to-face context
(King, 1990; Meloth & Deering, 1992, 1994; Mevarech & Kra-
marski, 1997). The description of both learning environments
suggests that neither may efficiently foster the development of
SRL capabilities without specific, direct support of SRL.
SRL Support
A number of researchers have argued that several key factors
support SRL through instruction, including “embedding metacog-
nitive instruction in the subject content matter to ensure connec-
tivity; informing learners about the usefulness of metacognitive
activities to make them exert the initial extra effort; prolonged
training to guarantee the smooth and maintained application of
metacognitive activity” (Veenman, Van Hout-Wolters, & Affler-
bach, 2006, p. 9). These researchers emphasized the generality of
metacognitive skills and the importance of extensive practice,
followed by explicit guidance in the classroom using the self-
questioning strategy of what, when, why, and how that helps
learners select a specific self-regulatory strategy, approach, or
response within learning (e.g., Hartman, 2001; Kramarski & Me-
varech, 2003; Schoenfeld, 1992; Schraw et al., 2006; Veenman et
al., 2006; Zohar, 2004). In particular, researchers have suggested
the utility of structuring self-metacognitive questioning that fo-
cuses on learners’ understanding of the task and on learners’
self-awareness and self-regulation of strategy application before,
during, and after the learning task process (Ge & Land, 2003;
Hartman, 2001; Mevarech & Kramarski, 1997; Schoenfeld, 1992).
Mevarech and Kramarski’s (1997) IMPROVE method encour-
ages learners to become involved in regulatory learning by using
163
PROFESSIONAL GROWTH IN SELF-REGULATED ENVIRONMENTS
self-metacognitive questioning with regard to (a) comprehending
the problem (e.g., “What is the problem/task”?); (b) constructing
connections between previous and new knowledge (e.g., “What are
the similarities/differences between the problem/task at hand and
the problems/tasks I have solved in the past, and why?”); (c) using
appropriate strategies to solve the problem/task (e.g., “What are
the strategies/tactics/principles appropriate for solving the prob-
lem/task, and why?” “When/how should I implement a particular
strategy?”); and (d) reflecting on the processes and the solution
(e.g., “Does the solution make sense?” “How can I solve the task
in another way?”). Generally speaking, research reported that
supporting SRL with self-metacognitive questioning elicited pos-
itive effects on school students’ learning outcomes. However, most
studies examined the effects on content domains such as reading
comprehension (e.g., Palincsar & Brown, 1984), science (e.g.,
Davis & Linn, 2000), mathematics (e.g., Kramarski & Mevarech,
2003), general problem solving (e.g., King, 1994), and general
SRL skills (e.g., Kramarski & Gutman, 2006; Kramarski & Mizra-
chi, 2006; Michalsky et al., 2007). To the best of our knowledge,
little research exists in the field of preservice education to accu-
rately determine the benefits and pitfalls of such a model in
promoting preservice teachers’ professional growth in different
learning environments (e.g., Zohar, 2004).
The present study was designed to explore how preservice
teachers can capitalize on IMPROVE self-regulated instruction
supported in e-learning and face-to-face environments, to stimulate
preservice teachers’ professional growth. The purpose of the study
was twofold: (a) to design an SRL model based on the IMPROVE
method for promoting professional growth of preservice teachers
along three dimensions—SRL, pedagogical knowledge, and teach-
ers’ perceptions of teaching and learning; and (b) to compare
preservice teachers’ professional growth under four instructional
methods: e-learning (EL) without SRL instructional support, face-
to-face (F2F) learning without SRL instructional support, EL sup-
ported by SRL instruction (EL ⫹ SRL), and F2F learning sup-
ported by SRL instruction (F2F ⫹ SRL).
Method
Participants
The study was conducted at one of the universities in central Israel
and included 194 first-year preservice teachers (60% females and
40% males) for high schools in the sciences (mathematics, biology,
chemistry) or in the social sciences and liberal arts (bible, geography,
literature, linguistics). Most of the students were Jewish (80%), and
the rest were Arab (20%). Participants with different majors stud-
ied in a joint mandatory first-year course, Theory of Teaching and
Learning Methods. All of the preservice teachers who were en-
rolled in this course were randomly assigned to one of four
research groups. Each group studied this course separately under
one of the following conditions: EL alone, F2F alone, EL ⫹ SRL,
or F2F ⫹ SRL. Statistical comparisons between the four learning
conditions at the pretest interval showed no significant differences
in age (M ⫽ 24.5 years, SD ⫽ 6.8), grade point average (in
percentages) in major subject (M ⫽ 80, SD ⫽ 5.3), or in other
demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, socioeconomic status,
and ethnicity) or in any of the study variables.
The Four Learning Environments
Research Design
As presented earlier, the main purpose of the study was to
compare preservice teachers’ professional growth under four
learning environments: EL without SRL instructional support, F2F
learning without SRL instructional support, EL supported by SRL
instruction (EL ⫹ SRL), and F2F learning supported by SRL
instruction (F2F ⫹ SRL).
Shared Structure and Curriculum
All four versions of the mandatory first-year Theory of Teach-
ing and Learning Methods course were taught during the same
academic semester by four female teachers. The course, regardless
of learning condition, comprised 14 weekly pedagogical work-
shops lasting 4 hr each, for 56 hr of total training. Workshops
focused on teaching and learning methods based on (a) educational
and psychological theories; (b) strategies of teaching and learning
such as student-centered activity; and (c) pedagogical skills based
on Leou’s (1998) six skill categories: identifying learning objec-
tives, understanding content, selecting activities, planning didactic
material, designing learning environment, and planning time (see
Table 1).
Each of the 14 workshops in all groups contained three parts:
1. The teacher presented the lesson’s subject and its con-
tents to the preservice teachers in the classroom.
2. Preservice teachers practiced the knowledge collabora-
tively in pairs (either with the aid of EL resources or in
the classroom, depending on the type of learning envi-
ronment). Practice in all of the learning environments
was based on tasks that required comprehension of ped-
agogical methods and the analysis and evaluation of
lesson plans or video-captured lessons. Participants were
encouraged to participate in reflective discourse regard-
ing interpretation of pedagogical events, understanding
difficulties and raising solutions for the problems those
events presented.
3. The teacher presented a summary in the classroom, ad-
dressing any difficulties that arose.
Teacher Background and Training
The four female teachers who taught the preservice course each
held a university doctoral degree in education. Each teacher had
more than 10 years of teaching experience and was considered by
the students to be an expert teacher.
For the purpose of the present study, each teacher was trained
separately in a one-day, 3-hr in-service training seminar at the
university. The training focused on pedagogical issues related to
preparing preservice teachers for teaching junior students. The
training instructor (one of the authors) informed teachers that they
were participating in an experiment in which new pedagogical
approaches were being used. The training was implemented in two
parts. In the first 1.5 hr of training, each teacher of a SRL approach
(EL ⫹ SRL; F2F ⫹ SRL) was introduced to the rationale of SRL
164
KRAMARSKI AND MICHALSKY
Table 1
Types of IMPROVE Metacognitive Self-Questioning Embedded in Pedagogical Skills, With Examples
Pedagogical skill
Identifying learning
objectives Understanding content Selecting activities
Planning didactic
material
Designing learning
environment Planning time
Comprehension questions:
What is the task’s
goal?
Do I understand the
purpose of the study
unit or learning task?
Explain.
Do I understand the
content matter in the
study unit or learning
task? Explain.
Do I understand the
activities in the
learning task?
Explain.
Do I understand the
didactics in the
learning task?
Explain.
Do I understand the
uniqueness of the
learning
environment?
Explain.
Do I understand the
importance of time in
the teaching unit?
Demonstrate.
Connection questions:
What are the
similarities between
tasks?
Are the goals I
identified similar to
what I was exposed
to in the course?
Demonstrate.
Are the terms connected
to the subject of the
lesson? Explain how.
With which learning
activities am I
familiar?
What prior knowledge
is important for me to
understand the
didactic material?
What are the theories to
which the learning
environments are
connected?
What prior knowledge
is important for
planning the timing
for the learning unit?
Strategy questions: What
are the strategies
appropriate for solving
the task, and why?
What tools will help me
to correctly analyze
the learning
objectives of the
teaching unit?
Demonstrate.
What tools will help me
analyze the content of
the learning unit?
Demonstrate.
What tools will help me
choose the learning
activity that is most
suitable?
Demonstrate.
What tools will help me
understand whether
the material is
appropriate?
Demonstrate.
What tools will I use to
design a suitable
learning
environment?
Demonstrate.
What tools will help me
divide the time
between the teaching
units? Demonstrate.
Reflection questions:
Does the solution make
sense?
Are the contents of the
teaching unit related
to the unit objectives?
Demonstrate.
Have I missed material
that is important to
the subject studies?
Demonstrate.
Have I checked that the
learning activity is
suitable to the
learning objective?
Demonstrate.
Is the didactic material I
selected suitable to
the learning
objective? Explain.
Is the learning
environment I
designed well
organized? Explain.
Have I left enough time
for exercises and
asking questions?
Note. The IMPROVE metacognitive self-questioning was modeled by the teacher before each practice of the different pedagogical skills.
165
PROFESSIONAL GROWTH IN SELF-REGULATED ENVIRONMENTS
and the metacognitive self-questioning method. The instructor
discussed the importance of SRL in fostering learning, and she
modeled ways of introducing the metacognitive self-questioning in
the classroom. In the remaining 1.5 hr of the training, the instructor
discussed the goals of the six pedagogical skills with the preservice
teachers. Particular attention was paid to practicing and discussing
different answers to the metacognitive self-questioning embedded
in each pedagogical skill (e.g., identifying learning objectives,
planning didactic material).
Unlike the teacher training in the two SRL-supported learning
conditions, training for the EL alone and F2F alone conditions did
not explicitly introduce teachers to any SRL approach. However,
all teachers were exposed to the same amount and structure of
training related to learning theories and discussion of pedagogical
issues (e.g., cooperative learning, planning materials, ways of
implementing high order skills).
During the period of the study, the authors observed all teachers
six times (every second week) to help ensure adherence to imple-
mentation of the instructional approaches. In addition, the authors
met each teacher after the observations and discussed any devia-
tions from the approach.
EL Versus F2F Learning
In both the EL and the F2F environments that were not sup-
ported by SRL, the course method was identical except for the
classroom location and the exercises given to practice the materials
(Part 2 of the three-part lessons). The EL lessons were conducted
in the computer lab. During their practice exercises, the preservice
teachers were asked to work in pairs to solve the given pedagogical
tasks by referring to EL resources, discussing the solution with
their partner, and presenting the conclusions in the whole class.
For example, one EL task asked the pairs of preservice teachers to:
(a) explain what active learning is and give an example; (b)
construct a rubric with four criteria to assess active learning; (c)
select two different types of cooperative learning and compare
them using the four criteria they had constructed; and (d) present
and discuss their conclusions with the class. In addition, the
preservice teachers were encouraged to use hypermedia resources
(e.g., hypertexts, video clips, or multimedia) for presenting their
conclusions. The teacher was available to answer questions and to
guide the discussion at the end of the lesson.
The F2F lessons were conducted in a traditional classroom.
During their practice exercises, the preservice teachers were asked
to solve the same pedagogical tasks as the EL group, but referring
to materials provided by the teacher. For example, the aforemen-
tioned task on active learning was structured as follows for the F2F
group: The pairs of preservice teachers received materials on
learning styles (e.g., articles, video clips, didactical objects) and
were asked to discuss them and offer solutions according to all
four aforementioned parts of the task. In addition, they were
encouraged to present their conclusions in an active format (e.g.,
peer activities, simulations). Again, the teacher was available to
answer questions and to guide the discussion at the end of the
lesson.
To sum up, EL activities asked preservice teachers to act inde-
pendently, navigate in a nonlinear environment, and retrieve in-
formation relevant to the task at hand. The students searched,
selected, assessed, gathered, organized, and combined pieces of
information. On the other hand, the preservice teachers in the F2F
environment were asked to act independently in a linear environ-
ment to organize and combine pieces of information relevant to the
task at hand. The latter environment affords fewer opportunities
for regulation, control, and evaluation of learning progress than the
former.
EL ⫹ SRL Versus F2F ⫹ SRL
Similar to the non-SRL groups (EL alone and F2F alone), the
EL and F2F environments supported by SRL practiced and dis-
cussed the same tasks embedded within the same six pedagogical
skills (Table 1), but with the addition of metacognitive self-
questioning. The SRL support was based on the four-part IM-
PROVE metacognitive self-questioning model (comprehension,
connection, strategy, and reflection) for enhancing SRL and ped-
agogical knowledge (Kramarski & Mevarech, 2003; Mevarech &
Kramarski, 1997). As noted, the IMPROVE model was previously
applied mostly to learning among school students. In the present
study, the model was expanded to SRL in Leou’s (1998) six
pedagogical skills (identifying learning objectives, understanding
content, selecting activities, planning didactic material, designing
learning environment, and planning time) embedded in the two
different university learning environments (EL and F2F). Table 1
presents the IMPROVE model and the kinds of metacognitive
self-questions embedded in the pedagogical skills.
In both the EL and F2F environments supported by SRL,
practice of SRL (during Part 2 of the lessons) was implemented by
the following three steps. First, SRL theory was presented (Schraw
et al., 2006), and the IMPROVE metacognitive self-questioning
model was explained. The teacher presented and discussed re-
search findings about the effects of IMPROVE on students’ prob-
lem solving and SRL (Kramarski & Mevarech, 2003).
Second, the IMPROVE metacognitive self-questioning strategy
was modeled by the teacher before practicing each pedagogical
skill, and the strategy was practiced in pedagogical tasks in various
contexts. The metacognitive questions were embedded in preser-
vice teachers’ workshop materials, according to each of the six
pedagogical skills, as follows: In the EL environment, the IM-
PROVE metacognitive self-questions were embedded in the EL
task pages and were displayed onscreen as automatic pop-ups
during the practice of each pedagogical skill. In the F2F environ-
ment, the IMPROVE metacognitive self-questions were embedded
in the paper-and-pencil tasks.
Finally, the preservice teachers in both SRL groups were en-
couraged to explicitly use the IMPROVE questions and provide
the necessary explanations while solving their tasks and while
conducting team and class discussions. In both environments, the
preservice teachers were asked to address the questions in writing
when completing various study tasks.
Assessment Measures
Three measures were administered to the preservice teachers to
assess the three dimensions of preservice teachers’ professional
growth, at two intervals: pretest and posttest.
The SRL Dimension
The 50-item Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire
(MSLQ; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991) assessed
166
KRAMARSKI AND MICHALSKY
preservice teachers’ self-reported cognition, metacognition, and
motivation in pedagogical learning. Sixteen items referred to gen-
eral cognition strategies: rehearsal strategies (e.g., “When I read
material for the course, I say the words over and over to myself to
help me remember”), elaboration strategies such as summarizing
and paraphrasing (e.g., “When I study for this course, I put
important ideas into my own words”), and organizational strategies
(e.g., “I outline the chapters in my task to help me study”). Twenty
items referred to metacognition: planning (e.g., “When I begin to
work on the task for the course, I think what is the good way to do
it”), monitoring (e.g., “During the task process I often ask myself
if I am going in the right direction”), and evaluation (e.g., “At the
end of the task I ask questions to make sure I know the material I
have been studying”). Fourteen items referred to motivational
factors: intrinsic value of learning (e.g., “I think what we are
learning in this pedagogical course is interesting”) and persistence
in the face of difficulties (e.g., “Even when the study materials are
dull and uninteresting, I keep working until I finish”). Participants
rated each item on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (not at all
true for me)to7(very true for me). Higher scores indicated a
higher level of SRL.
A confirmatory factor analysis with orthogonal rotation accord-
ing to the varimax method revealed three factors— cognition,
metacognition, and motivation—with explained variance of 59.4%
(24.3%, 18.4%, and 16.7%, respectively). Cronbach’s alphas were
.78, .72, and .72, respectively.
Pedagogical Knowledge
Two aspects of this dimension were measured: comprehension
skills for analyzing lesson plans and given pedagogical events and
high order skills for designing pedagogical events such as teaching
units. The comprehension test assessed skills that were practiced in
the workshops, whereas the designing skills were not taught ex-
plicitly to the preservice teachers. The latter skills assessed pre-
service teachers’ transfer ability. The pretest and posttest versions
of these pedagogical knowledge tests shared similar but not iden-
tical content and structure. The scoring criteria across time were
consistent.
Comprehension skills. The Pedagogical Comprehending Test,
based on the Simpson (2005) test, assessed participants’ analysis
of two structured teaching units regarding the general subject of
modernism’s effects on people’s lives. The students were given 1
hr to peruse the units and answer a paper-and-pencil task.
Ten open questions tapped five subscales that referred to dif-
ferent cognitive levels of comprehending (two questions per level)
according to Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy: comprehension (“What is
the purpose of the teaching units?”), application (“Sort the activ-
ities in the teaching units according to teaching strategies”), anal-
ysis (“What are the difficulties expected in the presentation of the
teaching units?”), synthesis (“Based on the course’s bibliography,
indicate the pupils’ various learning styles and how they are
expressed in the teaching units described before you”), and eval-
uation (“What is the ideal teaching method in your opinion?
Explain”).
Participants’ comprehending skills were scored as low (1), me-
dium (2), high (3), or no answer (0). Scores ranged between 0 and
30. Students’ responses were coded by two trained judges with
expertise in pedagogical knowledge. Interjudge reliability, calcu-
lated with Cohen’s kappa measure for the same 30% of the
responses coded by both judges, yielded a high reliability coeffi-
cient of .94.
Designing skills. Each participant was given 1.5 hr to design a
written three-lesson teaching unit regarding the effects of smoking
on people’s lives. The same judges, experts in pedagogical knowl-
edge, scored the participants’ designing skills as evidenced in these
learning units using Leou’s (1998) Pedagogical Designing Index.
The index focuses on six pedagogical skill categories: identifying
learning objectives (e.g., “presents clear learning objectives, de-
tailing the capacities that the students are supposed to develop”);
understanding content (e.g., “selects relevant information and ex-
periences from the subject to be studied”); selecting activities (e.g.,
“outlines the active, ordered manner of carrying out methodolog-
ical strategies or learning experiences”); planning didactic material
(e.g., “defines the set of materials, resources that the children will
use to carry out learning activities”); designing learning environ-
ment (e.g., “plans peer dialogue with the students during the
learning”); and planning time (e.g., “mentions realistic times for
parts of the learning unit”).
Each category was assessed by four rubrics. Each rubric was
scored on a scale of 0 (not used)to1(used), with total scores
ranging from 0 to 24. Interjudge reliability was calculated for the
same 30% of the responses coded by both judges, ⫽.87.
Disagreements on the scoring and coding of pedagogical knowl-
edge (comprehending skills and designing skills) were resolved
through discussion.
Teaching and Learning Perceptions
Participants’ perceptions of teaching and learning were assessed
through metaphors presented in a questionnaire based on Fosnot
and Maarten (2001). Metaphors are means to express abstract or
difficult-to-explain concepts and can provide deep insight into how
teachers perceive the essence of teaching and learning (Gibbs,
2003; Palmer, 1998).
The eight-item questionnaire (see Appendix) comprised one
textual metaphor and one graphic metaphor referring to each of
four perceptions of teaching and learning along the continuum
from teacher-centered activity (transmitting information) to
student-centered activity (self-construction of knowledge): (a)
transmitting information (Items 1, 5), (b) modeling by the teacher
(Items 2, 6), (c) empowerment of the student (Items 3, 7), and (d)
self-construction of knowledge (Items 4, 8). For example, the
transmitting information issue was assessed with the textual met-
aphor (Item 1) of “The learner is like an empty vessel to be filled”
and with the graphic metaphor depicting the teacher as a gas
attendant pouring the learning material— gasoline—down the
child’s throat (Item 5).
Participants rated each item on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging
from 1 (not at all/never true for me)to7(very true for me). Each
teacher perception was scored as the mean score of its textual and
graphic metaphors, with higher scores indicating stronger empha-
sis of that perception. Cronbach’s alphas were .84 for the graphic
metaphors and .89 for the textual metaphors.
Procedure
Instruction began in the classrooms at the beginning of the
second academic semester and continued for 56 hr. The teaching
167
PROFESSIONAL GROWTH IN SELF-REGULATED ENVIRONMENTS
program was the same in each classroom, but the instructional
conditions were adapted according to the research design. Three
pretest–posttest measures were administered by the teachers in the
classroom setting on the first and last days of the course (lasting 4
hr each day). The measures were administrated in the same order
on both days: SRL, pedagogical knowledge, and teaching–learning
perceptions. Participants were informed that these measures were
part of a research study to determine the effectiveness of preser-
vice training. All students in the course participated in the study.
Results
We first present the findings for the professional growth of the
preservice teachers in the three dimensions studied: SRL, peda-
gogical knowledge, and perceptions of teaching and learning.
The SRL Dimension
Table 2 presents the mean scores and standard deviations of
self-reported SRL for the three MSLQ components (cognition,
metacognition, and motivation) by time (pretest–posttest) and
learning group (EL, F2F, EL ⫹ SRL, F2F ⫹ SRL). A multivariate
analysis of variance for the pretest results indicated that before the
course began, no significant differences emerged between the four
learning groups on any of the perceived SRL components: simul-
taneously, MSE ⫽ 11.2, F(6, 384) ⫽ 2.15, p ⬎ .32,
2
⫽ .13.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures (2 times ⫻
4 groups) on each of the three components of the SRL variable
indicated a significant time effect for all SRL components: cognition,
MSE ⫽ 4.82, F(1, 190) ⫽ 24.17, p ⬍ .001,
2
⫽ .43; metacognition,
MSE ⫽ 3.21, F(1, 190) ⫽ 37.21, p ⬍ .001,
2
⫽ .56; and motivation,
MSE ⫽ 2.92, F(1, 190) ⫽ 52.27, p ⬍ .001,
2
⫽ .59. Significant
effects emerged for the interaction between the learning environ-
ment and the time of measurement for each of the three SRL
components: cognition, MSE ⫽ 4.82, F(3, 189) ⫽ 5.61, p ⬍ .001,
2
⫽ .19; metacognition, MSE ⫽ 3.21, F(3, 189) ⫽ 8.35, p ⬍ .001,
2
⫽ .24; and motivation, MSE ⫽ 2.92, F(3, 189) ⫽ 17.21, p ⬍
.001,
2
⫽ .42.
A post hoc analysis according to Scheffe´ and Cohen’s d effect
size (d was calculated as the ratio between the differences of the
pretest and the posttest and the average standard deviation of the
pretest) at the end of the course indicated that learning in an
electronic or classroom environment when combined with the
support of self-regulation (EL ⫹ SRL; F2F ⫹ SRL) was more
effective for the various components of self-regulation than was
learning in environments without self-regulation (EL; F2F). Fur-
thermore, the combination of EL environment with self-regulation
was most effective. Almost no differences emerged between the
two SRL-unsupported learning environments (EL and F2F) re-
garding preservice teachers’ self-reported SRL scores. Table 2
presents Cohen’s d values for the various SRL components in the
four learning groups.
The findings indicated that the teachers who were exposed to
SRL support (EL ⫹ SRL and F2F ⫹ SRL) more often reported
that they were good strategy users. They perceived themselves as
planning, setting goals, organizing, self-monitoring, and self-
evaluating at various points during the process of skill acquisition.
In terms of motivational processes, these learners reported high
intrinsic interest and persistence in learning. These self-reported
skills were highest among the EL ⫹ SRL teachers (EL ⫹ SRL,
d ⫽ 1.07, 0.93, 0.85; F2F ⫹ SRL, d ⫽ 0.74, 0.54, 0.77, respec-
tively, for cognition, metacognition, and motivation).
Pedagogical Knowledge
Table 3 presents the mean scores and standard deviations for the
two skill areas of preservice teachers’ pedagogical knowledge (com-
prehending skills– designing skills) by time (pretest–posttest) and
learning group (EL, F2F, EL ⫹ SRL, F2F ⫹ SRL). A multivariate
Table 2
Preservice Teachers’ Means, Standard Deviations, and Cohen’s d Effect Size for Perceived Self-Regulated Learning (SRL)
Components by Time and Learning Environment Condition
SRL component
Learning condition
EL ⫹ SRL
n ⫽ 47
F2F ⫹ SRL
n ⫽ 48
EL
n ⫽ 53
F2F
n ⫽ 46
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Cognition
M 4.1 5.6 3.9 4.9 4.0 4.4 3.9 4.5
SD 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3
d 1.07 0.74 0.40 0.44
Metacognition
M 3.6 4.9 3.7 4.4 3.5 4.0 3.6 4.1
SD 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3
d 0.93 0.54 0.36 0.38
Motivation
M 4.5 5.9 4.2 5.4 4.4 5.0 4.3 4.8
SD 1.4 1.9 1.2 1.9 1.3 1.8 1.3 1.7
d 0.85 0.77 0.48 0.32
Note. Scores ranged from 1 to 7 for the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. Cohen’s d effect size was calculated as the ratio between the
posttest minus the pretest value, and the average standard deviation of the pretest. EL ⫽ e-learning; F2F ⫽ face-to-face learning; Pre ⫽ pretest; Post ⫽
posttest.
168
KRAMARSKI AND MICHALSKY
analysis of variance for the pretest results indicated that before the
course began, no significant differences emerged between the four
learning groups on either the comprehending or the designing skills:
simultaneously, MSE ⫽ 11.32, F(6, 383) ⫽ 1.16, p ⬎ .32,
2
⫽ .02.
We performed a multivariate analysis of covariance
(MANCOVA) with Wilks’s lambda test on the posttest scores,
using pretest scores as a covariant (Huck, 2004). Before perform-
ing the MANCOVA, we checked and obtained the prerequisites
for running this test, MSE ⫽ 2.1, F(6, 382) ⬍ 1.00, p ⬎ .05,
2
⫽
.01. The MANCOVA was followed by analysis of covariance
(ANCOVA) tests. MANCOVA was implemented because the tasks
for these measures were different at pretest and posttest. We followed
the MANCOVA with ANCOVA tests to indicate the source of
differences regarding the two pedagogical skills.
Results indicated that at the end of the course significant dif-
ferences emerged between the learning conditions on preservice
teachers’ comprehending and designing skills for posttest scores
simultaneously, controlling for both pretest scores, MSE ⫽ 11.23,
F(6, 379) ⫽ 45.07,p⬍ .001,
2
⫽ .48. Given these findings, we
report below on ANCOVA tests of comprehending and designing
skills scores by learning instruction.
Comprehending Skills
An ANCOVA test at the end of the course indicated a signifi-
cant difference between the learning groups on comprehending
skills, MSE ⫽ 44.12, F(3, 193) ⫽ 18.17, p ⬍ .001,
2
⫽ .27. Post
hoc analysis according to Bonferroni on the adjusted averages and
Cohen’s d effect size revealed that learning either in an electronic
environment or in a traditional classroom, when combined with
supported SRL (EL ⫹ SRL; F2F ⫹ SRL), was more effective (d ⫽
0.78, 0.67, respectively) in increasing comprehending skills than
were the counterpart EL and F2F environments without supported
SRL (d ⫽ 0.39, 0.29, respectively).
Designing skills
An ANCOVA test at the end of the course indicated a signifi-
cant difference between the learning groups on designing skills,
MSE ⫽ 31.24, F(3, 193) ⫽ 17.33, p ⬍ .001,
2
⫽ .25. Post hoc
analysis according to Bonferroni on the adjusted averages and
Cohen’s d effect size revealed that learning either in an electronic
environment or in a traditional classroom, when combined with
supported SRL (EL ⫹ SRL; F2F ⫹ SRL), was more effective (d ⫽
1.71, 1.00, respectively) at increasing designing skills than were
the counterpart EL and F2F environments without supported SRL
(d ⫽ 0.76, 0.40, respectively). The combination of supported SRL
in an EL environment was most effective.
The findings indicated that teachers who were exposed to SRL
support (EL ⫹ SRL; F2F ⫹ SRL) developed higher levels of
comprehending skills, which are basic for knowing how to teach
the subject matter content. Moreover, the EL ⫹ SRL student
teachers exhibited the highest level of designing skills concerning
pedagogical elements such as identifying goals, selecting relevant
information, creating learning experiences, and considering effec-
tive learning environments. Designing skills are high-order skills
that require teachers to be sensitive to students’ needs and to know
when to intervene in learning and when to allow students to solve
problems independently. Such processes demand SRL skills in
teaching.
Perceptions of Teaching and Learning
Table 4 presents the mean scores, standard deviations, and
Cohen’s d values of perceptions of teaching and learning for the
four perceptions elicited from the metaphors (transmitting infor-
mation, modeling by the teacher, empowerment of the student, and
self-construction of knowledge) by time (pretest–posttest) and
learning group (EL, F2F, EL ⫹ SRL, F2F ⫹ SRL). We used a 4
(EL ⫹ SRL, F2F ⫹ SRL, EL, F2F) ⫻ 2 (pretest–posttest) mixed
design to analyze preservice teachers’ perceptions of teaching and
learning based on the metaphor questionnaire.
One-way ANOVA for the pretest results indicated that at the
beginning of the course, no significant differences emerged
between the four learning groups on any of the four teaching–
learning perceptions: transmitting information, MSE ⫽ 3.71,
F(3, 194) ⫽ 2.24, p ⬎ .05,
2
⫽ .08; modeling by the teacher,
Table 3
Preservice Teachers’ Means and Standard Deviations for Pedagogical Knowledge on Paper-and-Pencil Tasks: Comprehending and
Designing Skills by Time and Learning Environment Condition
Pedagogical knowledge skill
Learning condition
EL ⫹ SRL
n ⫽ 47
F2F ⫹ SRL
n ⫽ 48
EL
n ⫽ 47
F2F
n ⫽ 46
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Comprehending skills
a
M 14.9 25.7 15.1 21.1 15.2 20.1 14.8 17.9
Adj. M 25.8 21.0 20.0 18.1
SD 6.4 7.5 6.4 6.8 6.8 7.2 7.6 7.8
Designing skills (transfer task)
b
M 12.9 22.8 13.4 19.2 13.2 17.6 13.2 15.4
Adj. M 23.0 19.1 17.5 15.5
SD 5.3 6.1 6.0 6.2 5.6 5.7 6.2 6.4
Note. EL ⫽ e-learning; F2F ⫽ face-to-face learning; SRL ⫽ self-regulated learning; Pre ⫽ pretest; Post ⫽ posttest; Adj. ⫽ adjusted.
a
Range ⫽ 0 –30; the pretest and posttest were similar in structure and content but not identical.
b
Range ⫽ 0 –24; the pretest and posttest were similar in structure and content but not identical.
169
PROFESSIONAL GROWTH IN SELF-REGULATED ENVIRONMENTS
MSE ⫽ 4.11, F(3, 194) ⫽ 1.71, p ⬎ .05,
2
⫽ .05; empowerment
of the student, MSE ⫽ 3.65, F(3, 194) ⫽ 4.31, p ⬎ .05,
2
⫽ .14;
and self-construction of knowledge, MSE ⫽ 5.23, F(3, 194) ⫽
3.15, p ⬎ .05,
2
⫽ .11.
A4⫻ 2 repeated measures ANOVA on the pretest and posttest
data showed a significant main effect of time on each perception:
for transmitting information, MSE ⫽ 3.17, F(1, 191) ⫽ 82.3, p ⬍
.001,
2
⫽ .48; for modeling by the teacher, MSE ⫽ 3.12, F(1,
191) ⫽ 49.72, p ⬍ .001,
2
⫽ .33; for empowerment of the
student, MSE ⫽ 4.31, F(1, 191) ⫽ 52.3, p ⬍ .001,
2
⫽ .38; for
self-construction of knowledge, MSE ⫽ 6.15, F(1, 191) ⫽ 71.6,
p ⬍ .01,
2
⫽ .47. A significant interaction also emerged
between methods of instruction and time: for transmitting in-
formation, MSE ⫽ 3.17, F(1, 190) ⫽ 21.42, p ⬍ .01,
2
⫽ .28; for
modeling by the teacher, MSE ⫽ 3.12, F(1, 190) ⫽ 27.53, p ⬍
.001,
2
⫽ .31; for empowerment of the student, MSE ⫽ 4.31, F(1,
190) ⫽19.34, p ⬍ .001,
2
⫽ .25; and for self-construction of
knowledge, MSE ⫽ 6.15, F(1, 190) ⫽ 32.73, p ⬍ .001,
2
⫽ .25.
Post hoc analysis according to Scheffe´ and Cohen’s d effect size
indicated that study in an electronic or traditional classroom envi-
ronment, when combined with supported SRL (EL ⫹ SRL; F2F ⫹
SRL), shifted preservice teachers’ perceptions of teaching and
learning toward a student-centered perception (self-construction of
knowledge) significantly more than in those environments without
supported SRL (EL; F2F). The EL ⫹ SRL environment displayed
the biggest shift toward student-centered perceptions, as found on
self-construction of knowledge (d ⫽ 1.87). Furthermore, the pre-
service teachers in the EL ⫹ SRL environment most significantly
reduced their teacher-centered perceptions, as found for transmit-
ting information (d ⫽⫺1.04). These findings indicated that the
EL ⫹ SRL teachers highly believed in student-centered learning,
in which knowledge typically develops out of students’ needs and
interests. Such perceptions are inherent in high-SRL environments
that demand capabilities of regulation, control, and evaluation of
learning progress.
Table 5 summarizes the findings for participants’ profes-
sional growth according to the three dimensions and their
subcomponents.
Table 4
Preservice Teachers’ Means, Standard Deviations, and Cohen’s d Effect Size for the Perceptions of Teaching and Learning by Time
and Learning Environment Condition
Teaching-learning perception
Learning condition
EL ⫹ SRL
n ⫽ 47
F2F ⫹ SRL
n ⫽ 48
EL
n ⫽ 53
F2F
n ⫽ 46
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Transmitting information
M 4.2 2.9 4.1 3.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.2
SD 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.2
d ⫺1.04 ⫺0.96 0.08 ⫺0.08
Modeling by the teacher
M 3.8 2.9 3.7 2.7 3.6 4.3 3.6 2.8
SD 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5
d ⫺0.74 ⫺0.72 0.45 ⫺0.53
Empowerment of the student
M 4.8 4.3 4.9 5.4 4.7 4.0 4.7 5.7
SD 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.6
d ⫺0.31 0.32 ⫺0.45 0.63
Self-construction of knowledge
M 2.9 5.8 2.7 5.2 2.8 4.5 2.9 3.1
SD 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5
d 1.87 1.72 1.10 0.13
Note. Scores ranged from 1 to 7 for the teaching and learning metaphors questionnaire. Cohen’s d effect size was calculated as the ratio between the
posttest minus the pretest value, and the average standard deviation of the pretest. EL ⫽ e-learning; F2F ⫽ face-to-face learning; SRL ⫽ self-regulated
learning; Pre ⫽ pretest; Post ⫽ posttest.
Table 5
Summary of Preservice Teachers’ Professional Growth
Variables by Learning Environment Condition
Professional growth dimension Findings
1. Perceived self-regulated learning
Cognition A ⬎ B ⬎ C ⫽ D
Metacognition A ⬎ B ⬎ C ⫽ D
Motivation A ⬎ B ⬎ C ⫽ D
2. Pedagogical knowledge (on paper-and-pencil
tasks)
Comprehending skills A ⬎ B ⫽ C ⬎ D
Designing skills A ⬎ B ⬎ C ⬎ D
3. Perceptions of teaching and learning
Transmitting information A ⫽ B ⬍ C ⫽ D
Modeling by the teacher A ⫽ B ⫽ D ⬎ C
Empowerment of the student A ⫽ C ⬎ B ⫽ D
Self-construction of knowledge A ⬎ B ⬎ C ⬎ D
Note.A⫽ e-learning ⫹ self-regulated learning; B ⫽ face-to-face ⫹
self-regulated learning; C ⫽ e-learning; D ⫽ face-to-face learning. The
equals sign (⫽) indicates nonsignificant differences between research
groups, whereas ⬎ or ⬍ indicates a significant difference in the groups’
mean scores.
170
KRAMARSKI AND MICHALSKY
Discussion
Findings indicated that teacher training in an EL or F2F learning
environment, when combined with supported SRL (EL ⫹ SRL or
F2F ⫹ SRL), was more effective in fostering the professional growth
of preservice teachers than were environments without SRL (EL and
F2F). The combination of SRL and the EL environment was
clearly the most effective in developing SRL (cognition, metacog-
nition, and motivation), promoting the abilities of understanding
and designing more complex lesson plans, and fostering student-
centered views of teaching and learning. Before discussing the
current results, we must caution that the present data regarding
SRL skills and teaching–learning perceptions were self-reported;
thus, they reflect teachers’ views and not their actual, observed
behaviors. Similarly, teaching ability was assessed only by assess-
ing teachers’ understanding and design of a learning unit rather
than by observing their classroom practice. Nevertheless, the cur-
rent findings do suggest interesting directions for unraveling the
varying effects of SRL embedded in different learning environ-
ments (EL ⫹ SRL and F2F ⫹ SRL) with preservice teachers.
Perceived SRL Skills
The current results for self-reported SRL substantiate previous
research, which concluded that to achieve SRL it is insufficient to
expose learners to active learning environments; rather, explicit
instruction in SRL is required. As Hartman (2001) argued,
Teachers should not be satisfied with putting students in situations
which require them to use any strategy they want students to use.
Practice isn’t enough. [bold in original] It is also important to
provide explicit instruction in when, why, and how to use the strategy;
students need to understand the rationale and effective procedures for
the strategy so they can recognize appropriate contexts for its use, so
they have criteria for evaluating their strategy, and so they can
self-regulate its use. (p. 56)
Several findings need further consideration. First, why did
learners under both SRL-supported instructional conditions (EL ⫹
SRL and F2F ⫹ SRL) develop their self-reported SRL skills
consistently? It is possible that the preservice teachers’ acts of
reflection on their learning while answering the IMPROVE meta-
cognitive self-questioning strategy helped enhance their perceived
SRL skills. Self-questioning can guide learners’ attention to spe-
cific aspects of their learning process (Ge, Chen, & Davis, 2005;
Kramarski & Gutman, 2006; Lin, 2001), thereby helping learners
to monitor and evaluate their learning processes. Ge et al. (2005)
found that university students who closely followed the self-
questions provided to them often used them as a checklist to
reexamine their learning processes, make sure that they were on
the right track, and check their course of actions. Lin (2001)
argued that self-questioning could engage learners in self-
monitoring of contradictory ideas and constructing new under-
standing without direct teaching of specific strategies. Kramarski
and Gutman (2006) concluded that self-questioning offers meta-
cognitive tools that might help learners to shift their attention from
procedural thinking to a metacognitive processing level, whereby
they consider strategies, establish subgoals, and evaluate moves.
Second, why did the EL ⫹ SRL learners report higher percep-
tions of SRL skills than the F2F ⫹ SRL group? Our findings
indicated that although both groups were actively exposed to the
same metacognitive activities, being engaged in EL with self-
questioning might help preservice teachers more in regulating their
learning and interacting with the pedagogical content functionality.
This conclusion could be explained by the very nature of EL.
Electronic information systems afford opportunities for learning in
a way that not only activates the relevant prior knowledge but also
specifies learning objectives so precisely that they provide criteria
for the selection of relevant information. EL learners need to obtain,
select, digest, and critically question their learning materials and to
relate the outcome of this process to their own knowledge. Such
active processes encourage the use of cognitive strategies such as
orientation, exploration, documentation, organization, and elabo-
ration, which likewise demand metacognitive strategies for plan-
ning, monitoring, and self-evaluation to retrieve and process
learning-relevant information. Perhaps the metacognitive self-
questioning was more powerful in meeting such demands than the
F2F learning that afforded more conventional working strategies.
Our findings are in line with research conclusions indicating that
explicit SRL support for junior students in EL is a vehicle for
mindful engagement in learning (e.g., Kramarski & Mizrachi,
2006). Also, although future research must validate the present
self-reports with direct observations of teaching practice, our cur-
rent outcomes seem to strengthen recommendations that SRL
support serve as a powerful instructional technique in preparing
preservice teachers (e.g., National Council for the Accreditation of
Teacher Education, 2002).
Pedagogical Knowledge
The current findings concerning pedagogical knowledge based
on paper-and-pencil tasks indicate that participants who were
exposed to metacognitive self-questioning (EL ⫹ SRL and F2F ⫹
SRL) were better able to transfer their knowledge from the basic
skills of comprehending pedagogical tasks (which were taught in
all four conditions) to the higher order skills necessary to design
lessons (which were not taught explicitly to any of the preservice
teachers). As conceptualized by Cooper and Sweller (1987), three
variables contribute to transfer ability—learners must master strat-
egies for problem solving, develop categories for sorting tasks that
lead to similar solutions, and be aware that novel tasks are related
to previously solved problems. It is possible that the IMPROVE
metacognitive self-questioning strategy led them to reflect more
efficiently on the solution of the transfer tasks because of the
opportunity to (a) know what to do (e.g., comprehension ques-
tions), (b) look at the big picture (e.g., connection questions), (c)
plan how and when to act (e.g., strategy questions), and (d) make
thinking visible (e.g., reflection questions). Perhaps such strategiz-
ing enables preservice teachers to better link theoretical knowledge
and practical knowledge. If our findings are validated via direct
observations of teaching practice, the current outcomes would then
extend previous findings that indicated a cognitive effect of self-
questioning models such as IMPROVE on learners’ reasoning and
their ability to promote transfer of new knowledge (e.g., Davis &
Linn, 2000; Kramarski & Mevarech, 2003; Kramarski, Mevarech,
& Arami, 2002).
171
PROFESSIONAL GROWTH IN SELF-REGULATED ENVIRONMENTS
Perceptions of Teaching and Learning
The present findings regarding preservice teachers’ initial per-
ceptions of teaching and learning as teacher centered (e.g., focused
on transmitting information) indicate that quite conservative views
about teaching and learning are prevalent among novice preservice
teachers, who appear to emphasize the role of the teacher in
leading the process. Such an emphasis might hinder possibilities
for developing students’ SRL skills (e.g., Butler & Cartier, 2004;
Perry et al., 2006; Randi & Corno, 2000). Further research should
address this issue by classroom observations and other in-action
assessment measures.
However, like previous findings (Entwistle, McCune, &
Walker, 2001; Saban, Kocbeker, & Saban, 2007), the current
research suggests that despite the natural human tendency to cling
to familiar perceptions—like the role of the teacher as someone
who merely transmits information—these perceptions may change,
albeit slowly and with difficulty. The present study found that
active learning combined with support of self-regulation can de-
crease preservice teachers’ perceptions of learning as a teacher-
centered affair transmitted and modeled by the teacher. Among
these preservice teachers exposed to the active, SRL-supported
environment, the perceived focal point of learning shifted to the
learner, and the role of developing conditions to structure that
learner’s knowledge was attributed to the teacher. The greatest
shift in perceptions toward student-centered learning, where the
student was seen as self-constructing knowledge, emerged among
those preservice teachers who had studied in an EL environment
combined with support of SRL (EL ⫹ SRL). This finding could be
explained by the very nature of SRL. Regular, ongoing exposure to
SRL poses challenges to active learning by specifying learning
objectives and using strategies for the learning process, which, in
turn, may shift perceptions of learning toward the student-centered
end of the continuum, as manifested in the participants’ changing
assessments of the metaphor of self-construction of knowledge.
Hopefully, preservice teachers who thus perceive the essence of
teaching and learning will be better able to develop SRL among
their own students.
Practical Implications, Future Research, and Limitations
Our findings suggest practical implications for professional
growth programs targeting preservice and in-service teachers. In
line with Borko (2004), who argued that “it is helpful to identify
the key elements that make up teachers’ professional growth: The
professional development program; the teachers, who are the
learners in the system. . . the context in which the professional
growth occurs” (p. 4), we first propose that such programs should
focus on the three key elements found here to influence teachers’
professional growth: empowering teachers’ SRL skills, strength-
ening their pedagogical knowledge, and shifting teachers’ percep-
tions to a student-centered approach toward learning and teaching.
Second, we recommend the implementation of appropriate learn-
ing environments for preservice teachers to facilitate achievement
of these goals. Teachers should be exposed to open EL environ-
ments that challenge learners to undertake active learning pro-
cesses. However, the present outcomes indicate that these envi-
ronments must be explicitly embedded with SRL support.
Further research is needed to investigate additional elements of
professional growth beyond the three dimensions studied here.
Future studies would do well to examine the assumption that
teachers’ SRL is extremely important to their success in teaching
(Herman & Meece, 2001; Perry et al., 2006; Randi & Corno, 2000;
Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 1998). Toward this end, preservice
teachers with varying levels of SRL should be observed and
monitored during their actual teaching activities (Radloff, de la
Harpe, & Styles, 2001).
Another direction for future study is to expand investigation of
diverse metacognitive instructional models for preparing preser-
vice teachers, in particular models that are implemented in schools.
In our study, the SRL support was based only on the IMPROVE
metacognitive self-questioning model (comprehension, connec-
tion, strategy, and reflection), which was found to enhance self-
reported SRL, foster pedagogical knowledge on paper-and-pencil
tasks, and strengthen perceptions of student-centered learning. The
current research expanded the IMPROVE model to the pedagog-
ical contexts embedded in different learning environments for
university students, whereas previously this model was applied
mostly to school students. We suggest that further studies design
and apply not only this but also other models for preservice and
in-service teachers learning in different environments. In addition,
we propose that school students’ achievements be assessed to shed
light on the relationships between in-service teachers’ professional
knowledge and their students’ achievements.
The current methodology sought to examine preservice teach-
ers’ professional growth via self-report questionnaires and analysis
of their written products to broaden the data sources on SRL,
pedagogical knowledge, and perceptions. Further study should
include other research designs such as thinking aloud, interviews,
and observations. In particular, we recommend researching these
variables during actual classroom teaching. Furthermore, future
research can investigate professional growth variables by examin-
ing the differences among a larger sample of preservice teachers
from different institutions of higher learning and the possible links
with other background variables (e.g., major of study, age).
The study described here makes an important contribution to
research about SRL, moving it in a new direction, into teacher
education, with the goal of enhancing SRL in both teachers and
students. Nevertheless, we recognize the limitation of implement-
ing each environment by only one teacher in one classroom, which
could have confounded the teacher or classroom with the instruc-
tional environment. We propose that further research should ex-
amine the effects of different SRL environments on a larger
preservice scale and among many instructors.
In conclusion, the current study calls for further scrutiny of
how preservice teachers’ professional growth emerges under
self-regulatory environments, with particular emphasis on de-
fining and examining features of SRL support that are linked to
qualities of constructing professional growth. This call for
research reflects the urgency of the new goals for teacher
training concerning the shift to information age classrooms and
the possible links between such growth in teachers and growth
in their school students. These goals suggest that teacher train-
ing should find ways to construct knowledge through SRL,
applying higher order thinking skills and fostering student-
centered perceptions of teaching and learning (National Council
for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2002).
172
KRAMARSKI AND MICHALSKY
References
Azevedo, R., & Cromley, J. G. (2004). Does training on self-regulated
learning facilitate students’ learning with hypermedia? Journal of Edu-
cational Psychology, 96, 523–535.
Blank, L. M. (2000). A metacognitive learning cycle: A better warranty for
student understanding? Science Education, 84(4), 486–516.
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the
classification of educational goals: Handbook I. Cognitive domain. New
York: McKay.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping
the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.
Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. C. Berlinger
& R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673–
708). New York: Macmillan.
Britt, M., & Gabrys, G. (2001). Teaching advanced literacy skills for the
World Wide Web. In C. Wolfe (Ed.), Learning and teaching on the
World Wide Web (pp. 73–90). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Brody, C. (1998). The significance of teacher beliefs for professional
development and cooperative learning. In C. Brody & N. Davidson
(Eds.), Professional development for cooperative learning issues and
approaches (pp. 25–48). New York: State University of New York
Press.
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community
of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cogni-
tive theory with classroom practice (pp. 229 –270). Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Butler, D. L., & Cartier, S. (2004). Promoting students’ active and pro-
ductive interpretation of academic work: A key to successful teaching
and learning. Teachers College Record, 106, 1729 –1758.
Butler, D. L., & Cartier, S. C. (2005, May). Multiple complementary
methods for understanding self-regulated learning as situated in context.
Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational
Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning:
A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245–281.
Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D. C. Berliner
& R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 709 –
725). New York: Macmillan.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). The teacher research movement:
A decade later. Educational Researcher, 28(7), 15–25.
Cooper, G., & Sweller, J. (1987). Effects of schema acquisition and rule
automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer. Journal of Edu-
cational Psychology, 79, 347–362.
Crebert, G., Bates, M., Bell, B., Patrick, C. J., & Cragnolini, V. (2004).
Developing generic skills at university, during work placement and in
employment: Graduates’ perceptions. Higher Education Research and
Development, 23(2), 147–165.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Teachers and teaching: Testing policy hy-
potheses from a national commission report. Educational Researcher,
27(1), 5–15.
Davis, E. A., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge
integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of
Science Education, 22, 819–837.
Duffy, G. G. (1997). Powerful models or powerful teachers? An argument
for teacher-as-entrepreneur. In S. A. Stahl & D. H. Hayes (Eds.),
Instructional models in reading (pp. 351–365). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Entwistle, N., McCune, V., & Walker, P. (2001). Conceptions, styles, and
approaches within higher education: Analytical abstractions and everyday
experience. In R. J. Sternberg & L. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking,
learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 103–136). London: Erlbaum.
Fosnot, C. T., & Maarten, D. (2001). Young mathematicians at work:
Constructing number sense, addition, and subtraction. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Ge, X., Chen, C. H., & Davis, K. A. (2005). Scaffolding novice instruc-
tional designers’ problem-solving processes using question prompts in a
Web-based learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 33(2), 219 –248.
Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2003). Scaffolding students’ problem-solving
processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer
interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1),
21–38.
Gibbs, C. (2003). Explaining effective teaching: Self-efficacy and thought
control of action. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 4(2), 1–14.
Grossman, P. L. (1995). Teachers’ knowledge. In L. W. Anderson (Ed.),
International encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (2nd ed.,
pp. 20 –24). Tarrytown, NY: Pergamon.
Hannafin, M. J., Hall, C., Land, S. M., & Hill, J. R. (1994). Learning in
open-ended environments: Assumptions, methods, and implications. Ed-
ucational Technology 34(8), 48–55.
Hannafin, M. J., & Land, S. M. (1997). The foundations and assumptions
of technology-enhanced student-centered learning environments. In-
structional Science, 25(3), 167–202.
Hannum, W. (2001). Knowledge management in education: Helping teach-
ers to work better. Educational Technology, 41(3), 47– 49.
Hartman, H. J. (2001). Teaching metacognitively. In H. J. Hartman (Ed.),
Metacognition in learning and instruction: Theory, research and prac-
tice (pp. 33– 68). Boston: Kluwer.
Herman, P., & Meece, J. (2001, April). Teacher efficacy, student percep-
tions of the classroom, and student motivation and achievement. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Seattle, WA.
Huck, S. W. (2004). Reading statistics and research. Boston, MA: Pearson
Education.
Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional growth among pre-service and begin-
ning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62(2), 129 –169.
King, A. (1990). Enhancing peer interaction and learning in the classroom
through reciprocal peer questioning. American Educational Research
Journal, 27, 664 – 687.
King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects
of teaching children how to question and how to explain. American
Educational Research Journal, 30, 338 –368.
Knight, P. (2002). A systemic approach to professional development:
Learning as practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 229 –241.
Koetsier, C. P., & Wubbels, J. T. (1995). Bridging the gap between initial
teacher training and teacher induction. Journal of Education for Teach-
ing, 21(3), 333–345.
Kramarski, B. (2008). Promoting teachers’ algebraic reasoning and self-
regulation with metacognitive guidance. Metacognition and Learning,
3(2), 83–99.
Kramarski, B., & Gutman, M. (2006). How can self-regulated learning be
supported in mathematical e-learning environments? Journal of Com-
puter Assisted Learning, 22, 24 –33.
Kramarski, B., & Mevarech, Z. R. (2003). Enhancing mathematical rea-
soning in the classroom: Effects of cooperative learning and metacog-
nitive training. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 281–310.
Kramarski, B., Mevarech, Z. R., & Arami, M. (2002). The effects of
metacognitive training on solving mathematical authentic tasks. Educa-
tional Studies in Mathematics, 49, 225–250.
Kramarski, B., & Mizrachi, N. (2006). Online discussion and self-regulated
learning: Effects of four instructional methods on mathematical literacy.
Journal of Educational Research, 99(4), 218–230.
Leou, S. (1998). Teaching competencies assessment approaches for math-
ematics teachers. Proceedings of the National Science Council, Republic
of China: Part D: Mathematics, science, and technology education, 8(3),
102–107.
173
PROFESSIONAL GROWTH IN SELF-REGULATED ENVIRONMENTS
Lin, X. D. (2001). Designing metacognitive activities. Educational Tech-
nology Research & Development, 49(2), 23–40.
Little, J. W. (2002). Locating learning in teachers’ communities of prac-
tice: Opening up problems of analysis in records of everyday work.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 917–946.
McKeough, A., & Lupart, J. (Eds). (1991). Toward the practice of theory-
based instruction: Current cognitive theories and their educational
promise. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Meloth, M. S., & Deering, P. D. (1992). The effects of two cooperative
conditions on peer group discussions, reading comprehension, and meta-
cognition. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 17, 175–193.
Meloth, M. S., & Deering, P. D. (1994). Task talk and task awareness
under different cooperative learning conditions. American Educational
Research Journal, 31, 138–165.
Mevarech, Z. R., & Kramarski, B. (1997). IMPROVE: A multidimensional
method for teaching mathematics in heterogeneous classrooms. Ameri-
can Educational Research Journal, 34, 365–395.
Michalsky, T., Zion, M., & Mevarech, Z. R. (2007). Developing students’
metacognitive awareness in asynchronous learning networks in compar-
ison to face-to-face discussion groups. Journal of Educational Comput-
ing Research, 36, 421–450.
National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2002).
Professional standards for the accreditation of schools, colleges, and
departments of education. Washington, DC: Author.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425.
(2002).
Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up
a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–332.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of
comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and In-
struction, 1, 117–175.
Palmer, P. J. (1998). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape
of a teacher’s life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Perry, N. E., Phillips, L., & Hutchinson, L. (2006). Mentoring student
teachers to support self-regulated learning. The Elementary School Jour-
nal, 106(3), 237–254.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal
orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 92, 544 –555.
Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation
and self regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology
Review, 16(4), 385– 407.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A
manual for the use of the Motivational Strategies Learning Question-
naire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, National Center
for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.
Radloff, A., de la Harpe, B., & Styles, I. (2001). The development of
self-regulation of learning in adult university students: Special edition on
selbstgesteuertes lernen [self-directed learning]. Empirische Pa¨dagogik
Journa1, 15(2), 267–282.
Randi, J. (2004). Teachers as self-regulated learners. Teachers College
Record, 106(9), 1825–1853.
Randi, J., & Corno, L. (2000). Teacher innovations in self-regulated
learning. In P. Pintrich, M. Boekaerts, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook
of self-regulation (pp. 651–685). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Reigeluth, C. M., & Frick, T. W. (1999). Formative research: Methodology
for creating and improving design theories. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),
Instructional-design theories and models: Vol. 2. A new paradigm of
instructional theory (pp. 633–652). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Saban, A., Kocbeker, B. N., & Saban, A. (2007). Prospective teachers’
conceptions of teaching and learning revealed through metaphor analy-
sis. Learning and Instruction, 17(2), 123–139.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem
solving, metacognition, and sense-making in mathematics. In D. Grouws
(Ed.), Handbook for research on mathematics teaching and learning
(pp. 334 –370). New York: Macmillan.
Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation
in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on
learning. Research in Science Education, 36, 111–139.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in
teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4 –14.
Simpson, M. (2005). The art and science of professional teaching: Pro-
fessional development to positively impact student learning (3rd ed.).
Kenmore, WA: Education Resource Network.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Trust in schools: A concep-
tual analysis. Journal of Educational Administration, 36, 334 –335.
VanDriel, J. H., Bulte, A. M. W., & Verloop, N. (2007). The relationships
between teachers’ general beliefs about teaching and learning and their
domain specific curricular beliefs. Learning and Instruction, 17(2),
156 –171.
Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P.
(2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological
considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 3–14.
Wang, Y. M. (2002). From teacher-centredness to student-centredness: Are
pre-service teachers making the conceptual shift when teaching in in-
formation age classrooms? Educational Media International, 39(3/4),
257–265.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achieve-
ment: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25, 3–17.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 82–91.
Zion, M., Michalsky, T., & Mevarech, Z. R. (2005). The effects of
metacognitive instruction embedded within an asynchronous learning
network on scientific inquiry skills. International Journal of Science
Education, 27(8), 959 –983.
Zohar, A. (2004). Higher order thinking in science classrooms: Students’
learning and teachers’ professional development. Dordrecht, The Neth-
erlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
Zohar, A., & Schwartzer, N. (2005). Assessing teachers’ pedagogical
knowledge in the context of teaching higher order thinking. Interna-
tional Journal of Science Education, 27(13), 1595–1620.
174
KRAMARSKI AND MICHALSKY
Appendix
Teaching and Learning Perceptions Questionnaire
Instructions: This part includes verbal and graphic metaphors that describe various teaching and learning perceptions. To what extent
do the following metaphors represent you as a future teacher? Rate each item on a 7-point Likert scale. There is no right or wrong answer
to this type of question.
Not at all true for me Very true for me
1 23456 7
1. The learner is like an empty vessel to be filled
2. The learner is like a tourist on a guided tour
3. The learner is like a plant to be nurtured so it grows and blooms
4. The learner is like an independent mountain climber
5.
6.
7.
8.
Received October 30, 2007
Revision received January 29, 2008
Accepted March 7, 2008 䡲
175
PROFESSIONAL GROWTH IN SELF-REGULATED ENVIRONMENTS
A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Journal of Educational Psychology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
